Jesus: The First Communist

Jesus said,He was the son of man and The Messiah and the Only Truth.Stop making Jesus about politics.Guy never said anything about politics.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You think Jesus wasn't into "The Law"?

Matthew 5:18
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Matthew 5:21
"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' 22"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.…

a reply to: Jobeycool

Romans 13:1-5 All of you must obey the government rulers. Everyone who rules was given the power to rule by God. And all those who rule now were given that power by God. 2 So anyone who is against the government is really against something God has commanded. Those who are against the government bring punishment on themselves. 3 People who do right don’t have to fear the rulers. But those who do wrong must fear them. Do you want to be free from fearing them? Then do only what is right, and they will praise you.

4 Rulers are God’s servants to help you. But if you do wrong, you have reason to be afraid. They have the power to punish, and they will use it. They are God’s servants to punish those who do wrong. 5 So you must obey the government, not just because you might be punished, but because you know it is the right thing to do.

I don't know about you, but that looks an AWFUL lot like a political message to me.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Jobeycool

Romans 13:1-5 All of you must obey the government rulers. Everyone who rules was given the power to rule by God. And all those who rule now were given that power by God. 2 So anyone who is against the government is really against something God has commanded. Those who are against the government bring punishment on themselves. 3 People who do right don’t have to fear the rulers. But those who do wrong must fear them. Do you want to be free from fearing them? Then do only what is right, and they will praise you.

4 Rulers are God’s servants to help you. But if you do wrong, you have reason to be afraid. They have the power to punish, and they will use it. They are God’s servants to punish those who do wrong. 5 So you must obey the government, not just because you might be punished, but because you know it is the right thing to do.

I don't know about you, but that looks an AWFUL lot like a political message to me.

That is obeying your government laws.Not preaching politcs.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You think Jesus wasn't into "The Law"?

Matthew 5:18
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Matthew 5:21
"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' 22"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.…

Yes, but that's religious law. Not actual ink-on-a-page legislation. A small point, but one worth pointing out.

a reply to: Jobeycool

Talking government is talking politics no matter how you want to slice it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Jobeycool

Talking government is talking politics no matter how you want to slice it.

I'm not gonna argue over stupid stuff.Jesus Christ said He was the Messiah and the only Truth.Jesus also said He came to fullfill the law not abolish the laws.The guy never came around screaming conservtive beliefs,liberal beliefs,communism,facism,socialism and whatever poltical platform you think is better to rule your government.

a reply to: Jobeycool

Just because you refuse to see Jesus' political messages as political messages doesn't make them not political messages.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Jobeycool

Just because you refuse to see Jesus' political messages as political messages doesn't make them not political messages.

Which brings up a good point. As Jesus seems to have been a zealot, can we even discern, from this historical distance, what his actual political position was? The problem is that we have very little proof, outside of the bible - which has had chunks cut out of it and been edited. We still know very little about the organisation of the early Christian church, especially in the years up to Paul's takeover after the siege of Jerusalem in AD70 and the destruction of the Second Temple. We suspect that James was the leader. It's all a bit murky - who know what would have happened if Jerusalem has escaped the siege and sacking?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I think it's a process of taking his messages to their logical and political conclusion. Ask yourself this, do you think Jesus would support taxes paying for universal health care or another war?

As for his political beliefs, at the very least he was a liberal. We know this because everything he proposed and taught was radically different than the norms of the day. In fact it was the conservative Jewish base that had him crucified because his teachings were cutting into their ways.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You think Jesus wasn't into "The Law"?

Matthew 5:18
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Matthew 5:21
"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' 22"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.…

Yes, but that's religious law. Not actual ink-on-a-page legislation. A small point, but one worth pointing out.

Yes, but in those days there was no separation of church and state, and the goal of the Jews was to establish Zion, or a heavenly kingdom on earth. And, yes I know that Jesus said that this earth isn't his kingdom, but even some Christians are still trying to establish the "New Jerusalem."

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You think Jesus wasn't into "The Law"?

Matthew 5:18
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Matthew 5:21
"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' 22"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.…

Yes, but that's religious law. Not actual ink-on-a-page legislation. A small point, but one worth pointing out.

Yes, but in those days there was no separation of church and state, and the goal of the Jews was to establish Zion, or a heavenly kingdom on earth. And, yes I know that Jesus said that this earth isn't his kingdom, but even some Christians are still trying to establish the "New Jerusalem."

I often wonder which Jerusalem they are referring to when I hear that. Jewish, Roman, Byzantine, Arabic, Crusader or Israeli?

a reply to: SlapMonkey
Good works always produce good fruit if the intention is pure and free of corruption and you will store treaures in heaven. Karma yoga is a good thing.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I think it's a process of taking his messages to their logical and political conclusion. Ask yourself this, do you think Jesus would support taxes paying for universal health care or another war?

As for his political beliefs, at the very least he was a liberal. We know this because everything he proposed and taught was radically different than the norms of the day. In fact it was the conservative Jewish base that had him crucified because his teachings were cutting into their ways.

I think you make a big error even referring to that as conservative or liberal. Liberals of today embrace using the state to enforce their ideals for a collective society and are willing to put down free speech to accomplish their goals. Do you think Jesus did not support free speech when he said woe to the lawyers scribes and Pharisees ? He may have been radical but now haven't you libs been calling conservatives extreme? Would liberals cast demons out of people and tell them to stop sinning? There is just no comparison here.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I think you are making a mistake trying to rewrite what I am saying with the bastardized and politically charged definitions of conservative and liberal that we have in modern politics. When I refer to Jesus being a liberal, I refer to him trying to push a political ideal that is a new and different. When I call the people who executed him conservative, I'm referring to the fact that they felt threatened that their way of life was in jeopardy and didn't want to change to accommodate it. You know TRADITIONAL conservative and liberal values.

I could care less about your partisan rhetoric above. Liberals and conservatives aren't defined by how they act in current American politics. Get your head out of the partisan politics and actually LEARN the definitions of liberal and conservative. Not the idiotic ones that the talking heads use.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I tried to say that liberal and conservative don't even match the social order of Jesus day. Why did you try to portray Jesus as a "liberal" against the evil "conservative" Sadducees and Pharisees if you weren't yourself charging this with partisan rhetoric ?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I know what you tried to say, and I'm telling you that your definitions of liberal and conservative are wrong if you think that liberals and conservatives didn't exist back in Jesus' time.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
He said to obey the rulers he was not an anarchist so to speak but that dis not man he advocated socialism or communism or govt tyranny.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I know what you tried to say, and I'm telling you that your definitions of liberal and conservative are wrong if you think that liberals and conservatives didn't exist back in Jesus' time.

I'm
Telling you definitions of liberal and conservative then ate not what they are today and they weren't even the same as they were two hundred years ago. Suppose you provide citation as to Sadducees and Pharisees being compared as conservative. Romans liberal Hebrews cons? I don't think so and even today Jewish are almost never conservative.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

This is what you responded to originally:

As for his political beliefs, at the very least he was a liberal. We know this because everything he proposed and taught was radically different than the norms of the day. In fact it was the conservative Jewish base that had him crucified because his teachings were cutting into their ways.

Nothing about that says "anarchist", "socialism", or "communism". As for the thread's points. To see what the OP is seeing, you have to read between the lines of what Jesus is saying. Naturally there will be some disagreement there, but at the VERY basic level, Jesus was DEFINIATELY a liberal. I'm not even sure why you are arguing with me about that point. Are you adverse to even considering such a thing?